APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1P109-13507)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, C.J., and Foley and Reifurth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Dong Mei Li (Li) appeals from the Judgment entered on May 28, 2010, in the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court).*fn1 Li was charged by complaint with harassment, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1)(b) and/or (1)(f) (Supp. 2010).*fn2 After a bench trial, the District Court found Li guilty as charged of both the HRS § 711-1106(1)(b) and (1)(f) means of committing harassment. The District Court sentenced Li to six months of probation, subject to the condition that she obtain an anger management and/or a mental health assessment, and to a $200 fine and a $30 assessment.
On appeal, Li argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction; and (2) the District Court committed plain error in failing to sua sponte dismiss the charge against Li as a de minimis infraction pursuant to HRS § 702-236 (1993).*fn3 We affirm.
We resolve Li's arguments on appeal as follows:
1. The evidence showed, among other things, that Li approached the complaining witness (CW); that Li repeatedly screamed obscenities at the CW while he was in a vulnerable position; and that Li's actions caused the CW to become scared. We conclude that when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was substantial evidence to support Li's conviction. See State v. Tamura, 63 Haw. 636, 637, 633 P.2d 1115, 1117 (1981).
2. Li did not move in the District Court to dismiss the charge as a de minimis infraction under HRS § 702-236. The decision to dismiss a charge pursuant to HRS § 702-236 rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Ornellas, 79 Hawaii 418, 423, 903 P.2d 723, 728 (App. 1995). As a general rule, an argument not raised in the trial court will be deemed to have been waived on appeal. State v. Moses, 102 Hawaii 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003). We decline to consider Li's argument that her harassment charge should have been dismissed as a de minimus infraction, which she raises for the first time on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the May 28, 2010, Judgment of the District Court.